Talk:History of India/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions about History of India. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

[Copied from User talk:Ghatus]

"Communal interpretation of history. Read "Historiography, Religion, and State in Medieval India" - By Satish Chandra"

1. By that logic, "Muslim Powers" is communal.
2. John Keay (India, A History) and RC Majumdar (History and culture of the Indian people) both regard the medieval period a tussle between Hindu and Muslim dynasties. Both are Neutral source.
3. Using Satish Chandra - known for his Marxist historiography - as a neutral source is similar to someone using P. N. Oak as a source.

- (140.239.232.12 (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

Muslim and Hindu Dynasties is more neutral then States. (2600:1001:B123:A713:D08A:7D30:D244:F62C (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

(ec) John Keay is not a historian. R. C. Majumdar is a historian of colonial times, influenced by colonial historiography. He doesn't meet the requirements of recent scholarship as per WP:HISTRS. P. N. Oak is a nut case who claims that the Taj Mahal was a Hindu temple. As for Marxist historiography, I don't see what that has to do with understanding the Hindu-Muslim relations in history. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

On Saturday/Sunday ( when Univ is not open) I will respond to the IP Nut (if the case is not already closed) who sees Indian medieval period as 2000 years and who can't see there were more Muslim Vs Muslim than Hindu vs Muslim in the 500 years period of Medieval India. It's about the continuity, not communal intervention. Do you have any Idea why Mughals call themselves officially The descendants of Timur, not Muslims or Mughals? Ghatus (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

1. Using adjectives like "IP Nut" shows your lack of judgement and poor character. I am an atheist - I have little interest in religious propaganda. I seek truth.
2. "who sees Indian medieval period as 2000 years" - where did you get that? You don't understand sentence structure? There is a comma separating the latter sentence.
3. The main issue is "tussle during the Medieval period between Muslim and Hindu dynasties".
4. Yes, there was a tussle between them. Cherry picking Mughals using Timor is moot. Timor himself was an iconoclast who used religion as a means to expand his empire. He also used religion to slaughter conquered people: Nestorians, Jews and Hindus as infidels -- and fellow Muslims (Ottomans) as apostates are great examples.
5. Hindu dynasties clearly used Hinduism as a means to safeguard or expand their dominion. Hindu States unifying in the Battle of Rajasthan, texts of Madhava Acharya (the prime minister of Vijayanagara Empire) using indigenous beliefs (i.e. Hinduism) as a means to defend the local populations against the Turkic Muslim Armies in Southern India, Shivaji using Hindavi Swarajya. Likewise Muslim dynasties used Islam as a means for conquest regardless of their inner intent (greed, power, expansion, etc.).

Please provide neutral references of your claim religion was not used as one of the principal pillar for conquest or safeguard - by both sides - during the Medieval period. Also, do NOT give me Marxist or Hindutva historiography, they have extreme political motives on their thesis and proofs. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

Who is "I"? You are using an IP, and so far 4-5 IPs have edit-warred.

Two sources have been mentioned, but they are not reliable as per WP:HISTRS. No new source has been brought in. There is no discussion of a "tussle" in the body of the article, and the lead is supposed to summarise the body. So, until reliably sourced material is added to the body, the lead should remain as is. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Blackwell history of the World: A History of India - Page 106-107 -- "... Indian History Congress formally adopted 1206 CE as the date when "Medieval India" began." "...the rise of the Muslim Sultans..." "...and the tussle between Hindu and Muslims dynasties for control." (24.157.56.12 (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

Also, who is changing it from three millennia to two? Haryanka dynasty started in early 1st millennia BCE and Sikh Empire lasted until 1849 AD. That is almost THREE not TWO. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

The online version of Blackwell History volume [1] contains no such phrase as "tussle... for control." Even if an earlier edition did, read the paragraph beginning with "Rejecting such suspect instrumentalist formulations...". So this source is actually rejecting your claim. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me.

Regardless, is this acceptable:

"The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent, the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures, the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost three millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent; the Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim dynasties intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh, dynasties, the advent of European traders in India resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.157.56.12 (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Please explain what changes you have made, and why? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The main problem you have is the word "tussle" and the sentence "tussle during the Medieval period between Muslim and Hindu dynasties" --> Your claim is: there was no tussle, since Muslims killed each other, Hindus killed each other, religion was not the main factor (even though it is not completely accurate). As such, I propose changing it to "...the Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim powers intertwined with Hindu dynasties" 1) Muslim dynasties did witness growth, almost all major Hindu dynasties in India were interacting with or against Muslim dynasties (trade, ideas or war), as such the word intertwined. Let me know if that works, or what suggestions you have. I am open to it. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

It is not I who has a problem with it. It is the historians. We write what the historians say. I don't have a problem with "intertwined with Hindu dynasties," but I think it is unnecessary. I will leave it to Ghatus to consider when he comes back. Note that you still need to fix the grammar. It is not a sentence at the moment. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Which historians have problem with the specific word tussel?

Please, fix the grammar, I welcome it. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:36, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

Also, we need neutral editors to support or change this paragraph. Ghatus has been very unprofessional dealing with this issue. From calling names to edit warring. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC))

"tussles" is not appropriate as too vague and informal. As a reminder our goal is to summarize the content of the article, and the goal of the article is to summarize the mainstream historical view of the history of India. So probably the first question is: does the article currently pretty accurately cover Indian history as the historians see it? If not where is it lacking or which parts have too much emphasis/detail for their overall impact?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

As a neutral editor, please find what is objectionable regarding this lead paragraph and kindly change it. So we can have an agreement and move forward. I do not have an issue with removing "tussle" as long as "Muslim dynasties" is mentioned within the context of the Medieval period of Indian history.

"The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent, the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures, the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost three millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent; the Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim dynasties intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh, dynasties, the advent of European traders in India resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India." (68.194.224.242 (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC))

Good to see that IP has taken a complete "U Turn" and his demand has moved from tussle during the Medieval period between Muslim and Hindu dynasties to the growth of Muslim dynasties intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh dynasties. Had you persisted with your claim, I had to provide you with this ^[1] and this. Both are "eminent historians"(no-pun intended). BTW, to your new demand, the word "including" already used in the lead means "not Muslims alone", but it means " Muslims were just one of the powers" as we all know the existence of the "Vijayanagara" and the "Marathas" along with "Delhi Sultanate" and the "Mughals". So, your demand is already incorporated in the lead.

It was 2000 years, not 3000 years. The first major imperial power in India was the Nandas and the last one was the Marathas til Shinde.(mid 300 BC to late 1700 AD).Ghatus (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

1. The current structure of historiography is poor: "a succession of powerful dynasties for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent including the Muslim powers" - Muslim powers are within the Medieval political entity - the sentence describes 2000 years of political entity.
2. Imperial power is different from dynasties. It clearly says 'succession of dynasties'. Haryanka is a very important dynasty - period of religious as well as military expansion, while the Sikhs were the last great Indian dynasty (est. 6 century BCE to 1849 AD - almost 3 millennia). (68.194.224.242 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC))

Ok folk. Let's see if this is acceptable to all parties involved:

"The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent, the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures, the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost three millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent; the Medieval period saw the growth of Muslim dynasties intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh, dynasties, the advent of European traders in India resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India." (68.194.224.242 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC))

Please let me know in the next 24 hrs, if the above has anything objectionable. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC))

No. It says "a succession of powerful dynasties". Both Haryankas (500 bc) and Sikhs(1800 ad) were petty regional powers, not "powerful dynasties".

The division (Ancient>Medieval>Modern) is done in the following paras of the lead. The first sentence gives an out lines of entire 2000 years.Ghatus (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sikh Empire being a petty regional power, I think you just lost credibility. They at their peak was the size of the Prussian Empire and more populous. Over several regions of the subcontinent, led attacks in Tibet and Pashtunistan, sent troops to help the Ahom kingdom. To say Sikh Empire was a regional player in India is like saying Prussia was a regional player in Europe. Hard to believe anyone will consider it regional. It is a powerful dynasty. Same goes for the Haryankas, it geography reached from Eastern India to past Central India. Again, not regional.

No, that sentence does not give an outline. "Muslim powers" are within Medieval period, like I said before, poor historiography. But we can remove it as a compromise. And why an importance to the Muslim Powers in that sentence anyway? One can say we should add Magadha powers, Hindu powers, Buddhist powers, etc. So remove it.

Someone else, please have an input. This user Ghatus is uncompromising and has his own totalitarian agenda. If Ghatus believes he is acting in good faith, propose a compromise for this paragraph. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Is this a compromise:

The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent, the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures, the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent, the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India.

Muslim conquest will be linked paragraph 5: "...Muslim rule started in parts of north India." (68.194.224.242 (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Please discuss and try to come to a consensus instead of edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

IP68, please restart the discussion by stating what your concerns are with the current version. The "compromise" can come later. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned it in the previous post.

1. Poor chronology to mention Muslim powers within that sentence -- which mentioned 2000 years worth of dynasties. Why mention Muslim powers out of nowhere? It appears in the 5th paragraph anyway. Plus Muslim powers should be within the medieval period context -- not Ancient, Classical and Medieval combine. Sooner or later someone will add Buddhist powers, Hindu powers, Magadha powers, Southern powers, Rajput powers, etc. Makes things too complicated.

Besides that, I am not going to waste my time to change anything else. Even though there is the 2 millennia vs 3 millennia worth of dynasties. But that is not something I care to debate over, I have gave my reasoning. I will let other editors change or discuss it if they wish. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Why mention Muslim powers? Because it has had a decisive impact on the present day religious and political make-up of "India," i.e., the Indian subcontinent, including the fact that it has the world's largest Muslim population. And, please don't worry about what other junk people might add. There are enough people here to make sure that notability is properly respected. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, it is mentioned in the 5th paragraph. Almost a complete paragraph is dedicated to it. Depends on whom you speak, they can say the same about the Hindu dynasties during the Medieval period. So, I think it is better to keep religious conquests (Muslim conquests) or dynasties of certain religion (Muslim or Hindu or Sikh; during the medieval period) out of the first paragraph. As mentioned, one can look into the fifth paragraph. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Plus I have maintain my position consistent - Keep with chronology. Do not bring current geopolitical impact (i.e. demographics). (24.157.56.12 (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

I have no idea what is meant by "keep with chronology." History is always measured by its impact on the present. Is there any reliable source on the History of India that doesn't highlight the rise of the Muslim powers or what might be called the "Muslim period"? - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What? Muslim Powers is mentioned. Look at the 5th paragraph. It goes chronologically. Muslims became a powerhouse during the medieval period.

Plus, again, you are going against the points Ghatus used with his sources: the dynasties were mainly Turkic, religion was just a part of several other factors which went into their conquest, being Muslim and spreading Islam was not the main subject for many "Muslim" dynasties or rulers - more accurate description will be Turkic dynasties and rulers who happened to be Muslim - as most powerful of Muslim states were Turkic. [Sources were pointed out by Ghatus himself.] (24.157.56.12 (talk) 21:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

The first sentence describes the scope of the article, as per WP:MOSBEGIN. This is not part of "chronology." In any case, we need to put a stop to this WP:FORUMy discussion. We have to go by what reliable sources do. As far as I know, the majority of them highlight the Muslim rule. So should we. (Though I am impressed with your recruitment of Ghatus to your side, his views are not necessarily decisive. It is the reliable sources that we go by.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, we highlighted Muslim rule with almost a paragraph. Plus most sources until very recently followed the British view: Hindu Period, Muslim Period, and British Period. That is increasingly being criticized. I think the current lead is not perfect, but is relatively acceptable to most parties. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

No, it is not acceptable to most parties. Joshua Jonathan reverted it this afternoon, and I am disputing it here. You have not provided any policy-based reason for deleting the mention of Muslim powers. Until you do so, you wouldn't be able to persuade any of us. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

And, I agree that several contemporary historians reject the labelling of the medieval period as a "Muslim period." But they do not say that the rise of Muslim powers is irrelevant or unimportant. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Who is saying it is unimportant? Muslim dynasties is clearly mentioned within List of Indian monarchs (powerful dynasties and empires) in the lead paragraph - along with major Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Sikh dynasties. Plus we have almost a paragraph dedicated within the lead paragraphs (slight mention in 4th and 5th is dedicated for it). In addition, if we go by specific importance like Muslim & Hindu dynasties or "powers", the lead paragraph will balloon. (68.194.224.242 (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

I AM REALLY CONFUSED ON WHO WANTS WHAT!!!!Ghatus (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mwa... Some people seem to wish away Islam and highlight Hinduism, that's all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

	68	JJ	24	comparison
1	The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent,	The history of India includes the prehistoric settlements and societies in the Indian subcontinent;		Same
2	the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures,	the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization of the Indo-Aryan cultures;	the advancement of civilization from Indus Valley Civilization to the Vedic Civilization, with expansion of the Indo-Aryan cultures; [per VictoriaGrayson source]	Almost Same
3A	the rise of Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism	a second urbanisation, together with the start of a still continuing process of Sanskritization, and the rise of the Śramaṇa movement, including the birth of Jainism and Buddhism;		Add "second urbanisation"; add "Sanskritization"; Jainism and Buddhism precede Hinduism.
3B		the subsequent development of Hinduism as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions;		Jainism and Buddhism precede Hinduism.
4A	a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent,	the onset of a succession of powerful dynasties and empires for almost two millennia throughout various geographic areas of the subcontinent,		Same
4B		including the Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent;	including the growth of Muslim dynasties during the Medieval period intertwined with Hindu, later Sikh, powers;	JJ: add "Muslim" 24~: add "intertwined"
5	the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India	the advent of European traders resulting in the establishment of the British rule; and the subsequent independence movement that led to the Partition of India and the creation of the Republic of India.		Same

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support JJ with one change - Vedic civilization is a fusion of IVC and Indo-Aryan, not just Indo-Aryan. See Kiss of the Yogini page 28.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support JJ - VictoriaGrayson - it has been edited. (24.157.56.12 (talk) 17:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC))
• Comment - Good work JJ. But, how can you put Buddhism before Hinduism? Against what did Buddha -the Rebel revolt? What's your definition of Hinduism and when does it start?Ghatus (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Hinduism is mostly post-Buddha. Has been discussed many times.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Yep. See Hinduism. It's an ongoing evolution. Did the Buddha "revolt"? Or did he follow an Indian culture & social stratification that differed from the Vedic canonisation & social stratification which had developed in the Kuru Kingdom? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Restore previous lead,[2] there is no actual need of starting with the descriptions about religions. Also inviting @Capitals00, Kautilya3, and Redtigerxyz: to comment as they were recently involved on a similar discussion.[3] D4iNa4 (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I think that previous version that has been mentioned here did included lines about religions, but it was not focusing to this extent, it should be article that should focus instead. I support exclusion of religions or Ghatus version here. Capitals00 (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support 68 version of 3A/B: "the subsequent development of Hinduism as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions" suggests that Hinduism is younger than Jainism & Buddhism. The books which talk about the "Hindu synthesis" say that present-day classical Hinduism emerged as a synthesis of various Indian cultures and traditions after Jainism and Buddhism; however Hinduism (pre-classical Hinduism or Vedic Hinduism/Brahmanism) existed before when the Vedas and the early Upanishads were composed. Moreover, Hinduism is called in numerous references as the world's "oldest religion" or the "oldest living religion" (ref: The Routledge Companion to Religion and Popular Culture p. 440, Britannica, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Encyclopedia p. 751). For 4A/B, support 68 (first option) OR 24 (second option). Ghatus (as the initiator of the discussion), we may want to approve WP:RFC for a broader consensus.--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Two changes needed:

1. Sikh power ( which did even not last 50 years as regional power) is a case of overweight.
2. If we allow JJ's synthesis proposition as the origin of Hinduism, we then have to accept the Marxist theory that Hinduism is a 18th century British construct following the same synthesis argument. What's your view @Kautilya3:. Ghatus (talk) 12:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support pre-dispute version: I like the pre-dispute version of Ghatus. I am ok with the wording introduced by IP24 as a compromise: "the growth of Muslim dynasties intertwined...". But more stuffing should be avoided. This is just one sentence. It shouldn't be so long that everybody gets put off from reading the article entirely. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A whole bunch of material got added today on the Sangam period and the Dravidian languages [4]. It basically has "me too" (or "us too") feel to it. Diannaa rightly reverted some of it, but it got put back. Well, I am going to remove it again. The involved editors should go and use a sandbox somewhere to write a nice simple section that is of the size of the Vedic society section and come back. The mainspace is not a sandbox! I would also suggest the involved IPs to register accounts because it is hard to identify and communicate otherwise. Those 64 bit IPs are especially awful! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw in many pages, like Gautama Buddha, they have a "pending" spot, where another editor has to approve it based on consensus. Can we do that here? Please advise. (2600:1001:B120:5249:B91B:7D5F:CF08:7075 (talk) 17:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

Physical features influence history to a great extent. There is an imminent need to mention about the impact of geography on history. A small attempt has been made to fill up the gap. please go through it and improve wherever possible--Dr MPV (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed section:

Physical features influence history

The physical features of India had greatly influenced the history of India. As Richard Hakluyt puts it “Geography and chronology are the Sun and Moon, the right eye and the left eye of the long history”. ^[1] .^[2] History of India can be understood in its proper prospective only with the comprehensive understanding of its geographical features

Mountain ranges

The great Himalaya ranges of mountains in north India had not only saved India from invasions from its north but also prevented it from the cold winds and dry winds blowing from Tibet. .^[3] They provide copious rains to the plains below besides they have also become perennial source for rivers like Ganges Yamuna and Brahammputra making the plains fertile. These mountain ranges also influence the climatic condition of the region. It separates India from China and helped in developing its own Civilization distinct from that of China and others. The passes like Khyber Pass Bolan pass helped foreign invaders to cross the border. The Khyber Pass connects Peshawar with Kabul, Others like Tochi, Kurram and Gomal passes connects India with Afghanistan. The famous Bolan Pass connects India with Kandhar. This is a very wide and easy pass and only through this pass Persians, Greeks, Scynthians Khushans, Huns , Turks, Mughals and even invaders like Nadir Sha and Ahamad Shaw Abdali invaded India. .^[4]

This border areas have people belonging to various races because of this mountain passes and consequent invasions. They also become the bed of multiple and mixed culture and civilization. The kingdoms around this passes had to be always alert which led to the development of races known for valor like Rajput, Gorkhas. These passes facilitated the trade and intercourse between India and outside world. ^[5]

The North Eastern ranges of Himalayas virtually prevented any movement to the western world as the passes situated in these portion of range were impossible to cross. It is because of these barriers no king from India tried to invade Burma and vice versa. ^[6] Vindhya Satpura mountain ranges divide India as North India and South India. This has resulted in the development of two distinct history, Civilization and culture between North India and South India. The kingdoms which were dominant and powerful in North could not influence south except few occasions and vice versa. These mountain ranges also prevented the development of unity of India and the one India concept always remained elusive. Another set of mountain ranges along the West Coast and East Coast in the Peninsular India help in bringing rain to the plains and became the sources for many rivers like Kavery, Vagai etc.

Rivers and planes

Rivers like Indus and Ganges contributed greatly to fertility of the plains of North India . The richness of the soil was responsible for the establishment great empires in this region. Many social, religious and philosophical ideas were generated here. Religions like Buddhism. Jainism flourished here and universities like Taxila and Nalanda were also established on account of prosperity prevailed in this region. They also became a source for the birth and development of Indus Valley Civilization. The development of art and literature including Vedic literature became a natural consequence.^[7] Development of urban culture had been one of the significant highlights. Foreign Invaders were frequently attracted by the prosperity prevailed in the region and had resulted in frequent foreign invasions.

These rivers also provided a means for internal transport and communication and many great cities like Pataliputra, Banaras, Agra, Multan, Lahore, Delhi etc. were founded on their banks.^[8]

Similarly other rivers like Krishna, Godavari, Thungabadra , Kaveri etc. contributed to the prosperity and development of great Kingdoms of South. These rivers divided the peninsular India in to many isolated portions.

the sea shore

The sea shore with it's long unbroken coastline with few fractures led to the development of fewer ports but they were busy throughout the year. It fostered trade and maritime activity. They established commercial relations with middle east and far east as well. Using the coast, some Southern kingdoms invaded across Oceans and created history. The same feature was also responsible for the European powers to set foot in India.

The vastnness

The vastness of the country and its physical features prevented the development of political unity. ^[9] Besides, the vastness and fertility provided enough resources for the kings to engage within India rather than venture outside India. .^[10] As a result, India developed some sort of aloofness and almost remained oblivious to the developments outside India. Therefore, it had to pay a very heavy price later. ^[11] The prosperity and richness also increased laziness and habits of ease and pleasure for the inhabitants. . ^[12]

The Thar desert

The Thar deserts affected the course of history substantially. Since it divided the plains of Indus Valley and the plains of Ganges, they became two distinct units. ^[13] This led to the mobilization of resources from other parts of India to the plains of Indus valley against the invaders near impossible. It rendered the Indian defence weak. .^[14]

---

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The new editor is right that Geography/Geology played a crucial role in shaping Indian history, Indeed, the first chapter of any college or university book on Indian history is on this issue. However, it does not mean that we should give disproportionate weight to these physical features. Rather, we should make a short paragraph on it. Three points are to be included there - 1) the role of Himalayas(the always awake gatekeeper) and the mountain passes (especially the Khyber Pass. There would have been no Indian history without the Khyber Pass), 2) the role of the rivers in building Janapadas (urban centres) and finally 3) the geographical vastness of India which made India so diverse a country. I think these three points are to be written in a short paragraph.Ghatus (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks friend for the suggestion, Let me try to condense it and make it brief Dr MPV (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

There are alternate views about the bias few historians had about the narration of Indian history. Those who read about Indian history will have to be kept informed about this view for them to take an independent view. Please improve--Dr MPV (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

As long as you have reliable sources, expanding on different sections/views is good. But, history of the Indian Subcontinent is too vast to cover in one topic. Remember, this article should act as a parent article, and very detailed sub-articles are separate with redirects from the Parent. So it is important not to go too overboard here. Thanks, Wasiq 9320 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Dr MPV (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC) Proposed section:

---

Writing of Indian History

The need for writing Indian history arose after the English East India Company (EEC) started ruling India. During 18th century in order to rule India, the officials of EEC had to familarise themselves with the lifestyle, the laws and rules that regulated Indian life.^[1] This necessitated them to focus on these issues in order to facilitate a good understanding of Indian people, their habits and Laws. Sir William Jones during 1784 founded The Asiatic Society of Bengalwith the objective to initiate studies to understand the lifestyles of the Eastern people and to record them with evidence. Scholars like Charles Wilkins, HT Colebrooke, H H Wilson have contributed substantially to the Asiatic society of Bengal.

Scholars like Max Muller and many other European Scholars learnt Sanskrit and become proficient in Vedas and translated all the four Vedas in German. Many European Scholars following his footsteps brought about number of books on Vedas and contributed to Indian Philosophy. All these literature helped them to understand Indian civilization and culture.

Christian missionaries in order to preach and propagate Christianity and to establish the superiority of their religion also had to understand the Indian culture and habits. The efforts of Christian missionaries culminated in a number of literature. All these literature, especially literature developed by Christian missionaries have to a certain extent influenced the English historians of India. They become biased about Indian civilization and culture. Mr. John Stuart wrote a book ‘The History of British India’ during the year 1817. This book describes Indian civilization and culture as Barbarous and anti- rational. The British civil servants studied this history book as a Textbook during the training period before they landed in India . This book helped this British civil servant to form a poor and bad opinion about Indian civilization and culture. Mr.V A Smith was another Civil Servant who came to India like this and wrote a comprehensive history book on India called The Oxford History of India. But Mr. Smith did not portray such a bad picture like John Stuart about Indians, Indian culture and Civilization even though he also mentioned that Indians are not capable of ruling themselves. Later Indian historians strongly objected to this type of biased and prejudiced view presented by English, and went about explaining various political and social institutions that were well developed and existed in India. English historians invariably focused on Emperors, kingship giving indications about the biased mindset they had developed due to the influence of various literature. They did not even mention anything about the well-developed social Institutions, political Institutions and cultural development existed in the country but wrote the history with the strong belief that Indians were lazy and had fatalistic attitude towards life. ^[2]

Later on many Indian historians felt that there was an imminent need for Indian history to be written objectively in its proper perspective with good understanding and without any bias and history was written also accordingly. ^[3]

---

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I think this Historiography section is precisely there for that reason. It talks about the different point-of-views or narratives.Ghatus (talk) 11:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I will go through it and revert if necessary Dr MPV (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Currently the naval arm of the Marathas has no mention at all, which certainly deserves a mention. Hence I am adding it (under Maratha Empire). Kindly do not make changes without discussing on talk page.

Amit20081980 (talk) 15:38, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The empires listed after the Delhi Sultanate emerged in the 14th century while, based on our article Eastern Ganga dynasty this empire/dynasty emerged much earlier and declined around this time. It doesn't fit in the list. The paragraph added later in the content is poorly sourced. Orissa government websites, blogs, and travel websites are not reliable sources. --regentspark (comment) 23:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The article contains 1,164 links. Terms are linked as many as 12 times each in the text (excluding infoboxes, navboxes, tables, captions, and footnotes). Some are linked multiple times in the same sentence, paragraph, or section. Such excessive linking fails to help the reader understand the topic, the history of India. Such links fall under WP:OVERLINKING and/or MOS:DUPLINK, and should be removed.

I propose that terms be linked no more than once in the same sentence, same paragraph, or same section, unless the proponent of a specific duplicate linking can make a convincing case that it is helpful to readers. Furthermore, I propose unlinking the following (number of links in parentheses):

These specific terms are all important to the history of India, of course, but they are already understood in context. It isn't necessary for a reader to read an entire encyclopedia article about Asia or the British people in order to understand the history of India. In the case of Central Asia, China, Japan, and the United Kingdom, the terms have been used, often several times, before the point in the article at which they are linked. Also, more pertinent terms often are linked in immediately adjacent text, such as India in World War II in close proximity to World War II.

I've brought this to the talk page because the modest removal of eight links of the above sorts was promptly reverted by another editor with the assertion that they were "important links". --Worldbruce (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The quote from Will Durant, footnoted as 244 is incorrect. Only the first sentence. "The Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. " is accurate. The other sentences are not in Durant's text and are inflammatory.

107.217.164.124 (talk) 18:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

The full text is widely attributed to Durant ([5], [6], [7]) but only the first sentence appears on page 459 of this 1942 edition of The Story of Civilization. It may have been included in an earlier edition of the book (it was originally published in 1935), but I can't verify that. I've tagged the quote as needing verification for now. clpo13_(talk) 19:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

All, New to editing Wikipedia, but a long time user. I'm a 7th grade teacher in the USA and was reading through some background history under Beginning of European Explorations and Establishment of Colonialism and came across this odd-sounding sentence fragment: "The British—who set up a trading post in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French." Does anyone object to editing it? DSD1980 (talk) 00:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)DSD1980

Yup. Definitely a hanging fragment. Go ahead and edit it (and welcome to Wikipedia). --regentspark (comment) 01:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The British—who set up a trading post in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French. The internal conflicts among Indian kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands.

Change to: The internal conflicts among Indian kingdoms gave opportunities to the European traders to gradually establish political influence and appropriate lands. Following the Dutch, the British—who set up in the west coast port of Surat in 1619—and the French both established trading outposts in India.

DSD1980 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done 16:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to History of India has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am pretty sure the Upanishads were not written in the second Urbanization,but rather during the Vedic period.

67.84.203.208 (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done While you may be right, we do need a reliable source that supports what you think. --regentspark (comment) 22:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

here is the reference: https://books.google.com/books?id=CBcJDBTmd9kC&pg=PA7&dq=upanishads+composed&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBk7nW8LDQAhUn04MKHZyECNoQuwUIIjAB#v=onepage&q=upanishads%20composed&f=false (2600:1017:B823:138:B1A8:9112:3EE3:2EF4 (talk) 22:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC))

The blurb, probably from the back cover of the book, only says the earliest of them were composed between 800-400 BCE. The bulk of them were composed after the Vedic period. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.linguistics.uiuc.edu/jscole/Sindhi_Elsevier_encyl.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060904034700/http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html to http://www.harappa.com/arrow/stone_celt_indus_signs.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306041858/http://www.lumbinitrust.org/articles/view/214 to http://www.lumbinitrust.org/articles/view/214
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571624/gupta_dynasty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090802092924/http://www.nupam.com/Sgupta1.html to http://www.nupam.com/Sgupta1.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfusd.k12.ca.us/schwww/sch618/Ibn_Battuta/Battuta%27s_Trip_Seven.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.who.int/vaccine_research/diseases/zoonotic/en/index4.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120093649/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/Ancient/Other/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NDIyOQ%3D%3D to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/Ancient/Other/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NDIyOQ%3D%3D
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@ScrapIronIV:, please let me know why we can't use the names by which the Portuguese and French called their Indian colonies in the English wikipedia article!—Dona-Hue (talk) 17:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The common English name is the article name, with no need for piping a foreign language into it. If you wish to add the foreign name, I would recommend you add it parenthetically. It would not be immediately recognizable to most readers, and should not be the primary title in the article. Happy editing! Scr★pIron^IV 17:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like you are ready for an edit war, but I am not. I will leave it as you want!—Dona-Hue (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104171240/http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue7/chauhan.html to http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue7/chauhan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120104171240/http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue7/chauhan.html to http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/issue7/chauhan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312081154/http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april15-04/body.html to http://mod.nic.in/samachar/april15-04/body.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र can you please explain the caption? The source is not reliable, see Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I can't find the accuracy of the caption anywhere. Demetrius I probably did conquer parts modern day Pakistan, but for this image and caption to be acceptable in this article, we need to have verification. Until then, I propose this caption and image be removed.--(50.29.100.185 (talk) 11:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

Cpt.a.haddock I will appreciate your view on this source. (50.29.100.185 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

The Senior is very likely the Robert Senior mentioned here. The coin also looks legit as does its caption. A full citation might help here as "Senior" alone can be a little cryptic. While I've generally been a little wary of the use of cngcoins as a source, the fact that their publications are being cited quite widely is a good indication of reliability. Similar images are also in use in the Demetrius I article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi. As far as I know, R.C. Senior is an excellent source for the coinage of the period [8]. Among many others, here's another source for the statement in the caption, and you can check it online for convenience: "Demetrius I (...) He portrayed himself on coins wearing an elephant scalp. This is symbolic of his conquests in India" (Conflict in Ancient Greece and Rome: The Definitive Political, Social, and Military Encyclopedia, ABC-CLIO, 2016 p.239). Also, I see the coin was photographed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and they happen to mention this coin type in the following terms in their catalog: "Demetrios I of Bactria, who appears on coins wearing the scalp of an elephant in recognition of his conquests in India" in Art of the Classical World in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007 p.441 Item 202. If OK, I will add these references directly in the coin caption, in addition to Senior. पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र isn't Heliodorus pillar a better image reflective of the section? (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

Better yet, an image of Menander, as he is the greatest Indo- Greek King. Also, the section does not mention Demetrius. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 15:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC))

In this reversion, an IP tells Maestro2016, "you made major changes to an established page. Let's discuss first in the talk page." Yes, let's. Most of this edit corrects the WP:Headings to sentence case. There are a couple of minor copy edits. And there is some content added sourced to Burton Stein, clearly a reliable source. So I am interested to know, what is the objection to the edit? Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would like to know as well. The edits are constructive and sourced. I also added a URL link to the source so readers can see for themselves (Stein clearly classifies the post-Gupta era as Medieval, not Classical). But he keeps reverting it without any explanations given. Maestro2016 (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Attention IP user: Please be advised that an edit warring complaint has been filed against you for your continued reversions without addressing your objections here. (There is no way to notify the editor(s) on their talk page as they are IP hopping.) Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:WRONGVERSION, I am just defending established content. The onus is up to the editor who want to change this content to explain. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

According to WP:BRD, the editor made a change, you disputed it, and now a discussion has been opened. The edit appears to me to be a valuable addition – most of it merely applies MoS policy. Obviously Maestro2016 supports the edit, and Thomas.W apparently does as well. So now you need to answer why you object to the content. Just because a page is "established," as you keep saying, does not mean further addition and improvement may be made. A new consensus version may always be formed, and we are waiting to hear why you oppose this one. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Maestro2016 was the one who made the change. Thomas.W reverts any edit which he views as POV, without giving a reason. In the talk page of Maratha Empire I have asked him how VA Smith is a reliable source. As he is a colonial British civil servant, and the lanaguage Smith uses is similar to Ben Franklin describing the Native Americans. As such, I defended those articles. Anyhow, it seems like Maestro2016 is a sock, all those edits are his. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

Maestro2016 did explain his edit above, sourced and linked to Stein. Accusing him of being a sock is a personal attack, and your only evidence seems to be that he disagrees with you. The edit was explained above, and you appear to have no substantive objection. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 22:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Personal attack? There is an investigation going on here. Don't play dumb, you saw it Laszlo Panaflex. You just support his NPOV. (2600:1001:B008:460E:A025:8EEC:8978:2D26 (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC))

I had not seen that. But reading through it I see scant evidence supporting the accusation. And you still give no reason why applying MoS headers and adding a clearly reliable source are objectionable here. Laszlo Panaflex (talk)

And like I already explained on that page, I believe the accuser is wrong to link me to the banned user in question. Either way, unless anything is actually proven, the ongoing investigation is irrelevant to this current discussion. If you have any actual objections to the edits to this article, please explain. Is it the change from "late classical" to "early medieval" that you object to? Instead of personally attacking users, try to explain what it is you actually object to in the article. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The article is semi-protected, and yet it has some vandalism. Could someone with edition rights check it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.26.21.211 (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you specify which part of the article has vandalism? utcursch | talk 18:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120085302/http://www.en.articlesgratuits.com/the-last-years-of-cholas-the-decline-and-fall-of-a-dynasty-id1804.php to http://www.en.articlesgratuits.com/the-last-years-of-cholas-the-decline-and-fall-of-a-dynasty-id1804.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The disputed content recently added by Maestro2016 and being removed by a user and the regular IP[9] with valid reasoning that it is irrelevant to this article is all correct. But another issues is that source doesn't support the information either.[10][11] You don't find mention of "Delhi Sultanate" anywhere in that book or website. Capitals00 (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

That paragraph is meant to be about the late medieval era in general, not specifically the Delhi Sultanate. It's relevant to the article (about the economic history), but probably shouldn't be under the Delhi Sultanate section specifically. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Where do you find any analysis of the figures from ggdc.net/maddison/oriindex.htm? It is still irrelevant. Geunineart (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have removed that paragraph about population and economy. We can't make our own conclusion by looking at graphs, those conclusions have to be supported by the sources. Lorstaking (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I have restored your original edit since it read like you had removed not just the objectionable content but also the remnants. And your next edit was probably an accident? Geunineart (talk) 03:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes second edit was a mistake caused by slow internet. Thanks. Lorstaking (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

As for this edit[12] where is the discussion? I could only find an edit from an IP couple of months ago[13] that removed it with a misleading edit summary. Geunineart (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@IP, don't remove something that stood for over 10 years.[14] I was only restoring what I had seen when I had edited this article last time before I edited it today.[15] Lorstaking (talk) 06:37, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see your post. As mentioned, your snippet is already mentioned in History of India#Stone_Age. It is redundant to use it in the lead, plus it is pre-history. (2600:1001:B015:C4CB:2877:33B2:1F43:C3B3 (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC))

Your standalone opinion can't change the consensus that is held for over 10 years, and even right now you are not following WP:BRD. Yes it is needed, see History of United States, History of Egypt, all of them provide pre-history context, this article needs to do that as well and it always has, in fact it started that sentence from the first sentence of the lead until 2015, still it should make the mention. Lorstaking (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

We agree that this was always on this article until removed by the IP. I would still keep it on lead. Capitals00 (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this discussion is about the prehistoric hominid evidence, we need a better source. Since it refers to archeological evidence, it shouldn't be hard to find.--regentspark (comment) 15:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree. I also wondered about that source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This, "The Human Body in Minutes," is not what's being meant with "better sources." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Partha P. Majumder and Analabha Basu (2017), A Genomic View of the Peopling and Population Structure of India: "India ha s been peop led by contemporary humans at least for the past 55,000 years." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually, a site that is considered to be the oldest homo sapiens site in India is dated to 77,000 BCE.[16][17][18] These are reliable sources. Geunineart (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

From Petraglia et al. (2010), Out of Africa: new hypotheses and evidence for the dispersal of Homo sapiens along the Indian Ocean rim, Anna ls of Hum an Bio logy, May–June 2010; 37(3): 288–311, p.299:

The Middle Palaeolithic artefact assemblages dating to between 78 and 74 ka at Jwalapuram in peninsular India were suggested to be the product of H. sapiens, based in part upon their close technological similarity with MSA assemblages of Africa (Petraglia et al. 2007). However, such a date range for H. sapiens in the subcontinent does not correspond with genetic coalescence ages, which indicate a younger dispersal event, at ca 70–55 ka. This temporal disjuncture led to the suggestion that the Jwalapuram assemblages may mark the presence of earlier human populations for which there is no surviving genetic evidence (Endicott et al. 2009).

So, there's more to these dates than only Patraglia's datings. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) See also Mellars et al. (2013), Genetic and archaeological perspectives on the initial modern human colonization of southern Asia, PNAS June 25, 2013 vol. 110 no. 26:

It has been argued recently that the initial dispersal of anatomically modern humans from Africa to southern Asia occurred before the volcanic “supereruption” of the Mount Toba volcano (Sumatra) at ∼74,000 y before present (B.P.)—possibly as early as 120,000 y B.P. We show here that this “pre-Toba” dispersal model is in serious conflict with both the most recent genetic evidence from both Africa and Asia and the archaeological evidence from South Asian sites. We present an alternative model based on a combination of genetic analyses and recent archaeological evidence from South Asia and Africa. These data support a coastally oriented dispersal of modern humans from eastern Africa to southern Asia ∼60–50 thousand years ago (ka).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the work but lead should only highlight what is not disputed, if 70,000 is the highest estimate (according to Endicott et al.), then it should go on the lead, as "Evidence of anatomically modern humans in the Indian subcontinent is recorded as earlier as 70,000 years ago, or with earlier hominids including Homo erectus from about 500,000 years ago." Geunineart (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

No, to your proposal. You said it yourself: it is disputed. Interpretations which are disputed are no "evidence," which by the way is itself not a neutral term. The lead summarizes the article; presenting disputed interpretations as undisputed facts is a violation of WP:NPOV. The concencus seems to be that India was populated ca. 60,000 years ago; that should be presented in the lead, not the WP:CHERRYPICKING of one author claiming 75,000 years ago. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

An estimate of 73-55,000 would be good enough. See [19] a source written by experts like Bridget Allchin, Petraglia, Michael D. This source was provided by Fowler on Talk:India[20] and also agreed by editors like Abecedare. Capitals00 (talk) 15:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Add Petraglia et al. (2010) p.299 (see above), and I think it seems reasonable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

See also Review article on the origin of modern humans: the multiple-dispersal model and Late Pleistocene Asia, on Petraglia et al. (2017), On the origin of modern humans: Asian perspectives. Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35: Given the content was removed without discussion or consensus, I assume that above conversation was more than enough to restore it. If you any objections you can highlight them here. Lorstaking (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

The consensus was for the 75,000 to 55,000 years, not for the 500,000 year early hominids. Anyway, the references don't validate the homo erectus claim so I've made that part more general. --regentspark (comment) 15:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

This article is a quite messy:

• Many sections are simply copies of lead sections of the various articles on dynasties. There is little attempt to describe a connected history. E.g. There is a section on the Empire of Harsha, and ten paragraphs later, there is a section on the Chalukya kingdom. But there is no mention of the conflict between the two.
• Because of above, there is no chronological order: you read about Dynasty X (year n to year n+500). Then, you read about Dynasty Y (year n-100 to year n+100). The article should not be organized by dynasties, but by periods.
• There is undue weight on certain dynasties / events, resulting from the various editors adding content about the history of their own regions. At the same time, many significant events / dynasties are not mentioned at all.
• In general, there is a lot of unnecessary detail, which should be limited to the articles on the respective dynasties. In many cases, a one-sentence description with a link to the articles on respective dynasties / events would be sufficient. This article is 240k, way above the recommended article size.

I'll attempt a gradual rewrite. Others are welcome to join. utcursch | talk 03:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I'll start with this section. Proposed changes:

• A more organized (and brief) description of Palaeolithic, Mesolithic and Neolithic sites
• A section on Indus valley civilization: early to late, decline and successor cultures
• Remove the subsection "Dravidian Origins": it is unnecessary detail for this article, especially when it's a conjecture without unanimous support.

Suggestions and objections welcome. utcursch | talk 23:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bump. Any objections to these suggestions? utcursch | talk 18:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

None whatsoever!--regentspark (comment) 22:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

i tried to remove Dravidian origins hypothesis yesterday, but it was reverted by user @Highpeaks35 citing vandalism.115.135.130.182 (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

indian historic periodization in terms of european models is totally a irrelevant, circumstances in india were not the same as the european ones. i would also request adding bhimbhetka rock cave art as the base of evolution of indus arts as proposed by Erwin Neumayer Prehistoric Rock Paintings and Ancient Indus Motifs 2, i would also like to add recent discovery of ratnagiri petroglyps which has artistic depictions on par with gobekli tepe, i-e arts which appear in later civilization like Master of Animals 115.135.118.112 (talk) 06:03, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

second urbanisation dates seem to be pretty misleading, several sources do indicate that by 600 BC, india was already urbanised for several centuries for instance

Dieter Schlingloff cites G.R. Sharma's monograph in which he states that kausambi city fortification was already completed btw 1025-955 BC and the moats were completed btw 855-815 BC 1, which means the city was already urbanized from period of 1000-800 BC. secondly, Buddha's death has been recently revealed to have occured in the sixth century BC 234, Dieter Schlingloff also compares parallel emergence of indian cities with the emergence of greek cities, which have been thought to have arisen in 900 BC

“This is an important moment in the archaeological study of ancient Buddhism,” says Lars Fogelin, an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Although we can’t be sure that the ancient tree shrine had links to Buddhism, Fogelin says it is the most plausible explanation. “Depictions of tree shrines in friezes on other early Buddhist sites make the Buddhist affiliation of the tree shrine the most likely.”

hence buddha must have been born before 600 BC by which time the area that is east india where he belonged to had already been urbanised.

the punched mark coins are also thought to date from seventh century BC according to Jhon, E. Page 5

jain Parshvanatha is also thought to have lived around 800 BC by the historians.

Both Mahabharatha and ramayana epics have been thought to be be first composed around 900-800 BC.

the Northern Black Polished Ware also appear around 700 BC and the same is the time period when black polished ware appear in etruscan civilization 900 BC–100 BC

Both Buddhist and Jain calendars seem to begin in 6th century BC, which means that they were born in an urbanised era.

115.135.118.112 (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

The Buddha tree site again... See Talk:Gautama Buddha/Archive 9#New Archaeological Evidence for Birthdate. Compare this to Christian churches in Europe, built on the remains of Roman temples, which in turn were built on the location of Celtic temples. See also WP:RS and WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

you can keep your sentiments to yourself i have posted a reliable source, you have a habit of cherry picking mate, indulge in the rest of the sources which i have posted as well. 115.135.118.112 (talk) 14:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert the IP a third time, but for the record, the length problem has already been discussed here (see two sections above), the content is undue weight, and the IP is obviously editing in bad faith, because IP addresses cannot use Huggle, but an edit summary has been manufactured to suggest that that is the case. Vanamonde (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

F&F, Mathglot, Kautilya (and others): since we're concerned about length, I think we need to take a hard look at this section. I personally am not a fan, as I think it's too detailed to provide an at-a-glance overview, but too short to actually explain what the various columns represent, and what the periods mean. At the moment, I am in favor of dumping it altogether, and moving the material about Mill and Thapar to the historiography section. I would like to hear your thoughts, however. Vanamonde (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

It is fine by me. But the table was JJ's baby. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I didn't notice that in the history. Sorry, JJ; nothing personal, you know that. I'm happy to consider modifying it, too, I just don't think it's doing what it's intended to do at the moment. Vanamonde (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Poor baby. I think it's usefull, but no bog deal. @Highpeaks35: you moved the table while there was no consensus yet; next time just wait a little bit longer, please. I've moved the table to Outline of South Asian history. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35, I have selectively reverted one of your recent removals. Contested information isn't necessarily bad information; furthermore, the earliest human presence is a detail of great importance. Indeed, it's probably the single most piece of information that needs to be in that section. Earlier hominids are somewhat incidental. Also, the rest of that section is in terrible shape. Feel free to modify it later: I'm raising it here so we're not sucked into an edit war caused by miscommunication. Vanamonde (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

• Okay, I thought this would be a quick fix, but this section is a mess, and has a lot of synthesis going on. I will dive into it some other time: logging off now. Vanamonde (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: In my experience, one of the issues with the India-promoting-POV (and I don't mean the POV of editors from India) is that there is an obsession with antiquity, but usually only superficially, at the level of mentioning dates. There is much less interest in the activities and behavior of the ancient people so dated, i.e. in what they were eating, planting, hunting, ..., in questions such as: Were their dwellings permanent or seasonal? Did they leave behind pottery? and so forth. One strategy for reducing edit warring is to emphasize activities or behaviour more than the dates. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

The article is huge (currently 338kb) and way past the length where a split should be considered. Since this article is already in Summary style, that means first, a careful proportional balancing to assure due weight of different sections and that they have the right level of detail, and then moving off at least 50% of the article (moving 75% would not be too much) into already existing, or new, child articles. This is a big job, and would require an outline or plan of work on a subpage here to organize it. I'll help, but don't want to play lead on this one. Any takers with good suggestions, and a good head for managing a task like this, who's willing to take this on? Ping, please. Mathglot (talk) 11:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Mathglot The 338kb figure is somewhat misleading; it's inflated by a large number of images. I'm not denying its too long, but the page is at 125kb of prose size, which for an article this size, I would say needs to be trimmed by 30-40%.@Fowler&fowler: If you could take a look at this, I'd really appreciate it. Based on a quick look, I think many sections could afford to lose a little material, but the World War sections, the Second Urbanisation, and first half of "Late Medieval Period" certainly need to be trimmed. Several sections are also strewn with unencyclopedic language, both in terms of puffery and pushing a particular POV; the "Growth of Muslim populations" and "Hindu renaissance" sections stand out. Vanamonde (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, Thanks for the comment, you're right. I had to go look up what you meant by "prose size" and I assume you are talking about the definition for readable prose here. That indeed is different than file size (less than half the wikicode in this case). Thanks for that, and for your other comments about what could be cut and where. That's a relief, because it will be much easier to deal with the smaller amount of trim needed.

I'm concerned about the other end of the pipeline, that is, editors continuing to increase the file size unduly, without any attention to the child articles where the majority of the new content should go. This increase may in some cases be from editors with relatively little experience or who may not be familiar with Summary style and don't know that large edits should be targeted mostly at the child articles, with only brief summaries incorporated into the parent. For example, this recent series of edits by an editor registered ten days previously added 12.5kb (markup bytes) over a period of 24 hours. I don't know if there's a term for this, but on the analogy of "scope creep", maybe this is "newbie size creep". In any case, I'm not sure if there's a good way to deal with this. It isn't vandalism, that's clear; it's just that they're not familiar with Summary style. Maybe there should be a guideline recommending that new users not edit in parent articles that are at capacity? Maybe a hat note at the top of parent articles linking to WP:SS and suggesting that they consider addding additional detail to child articles first? Justification of this as a hat would be that it help[s] readers locate a different [i.e., child] article which would be more appropriate for their impending new content. Thoughts? Mathglot (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:RELATED, this would appear to be an improper use of a hatnote. I'm still trying to brainstorm how to deal with this issue. Mathglot (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Yes, I was speaking of readable prose size, apologies if that wasn't clear. There's a nice gadget somewhere which adds a link to measure prose size to the toolbar, I'll find it if you're interested. I agree that the total file size is also a concern; the number of images is somewhat over the top. However, the editor who added many of them has been involved with a number of arguments related to images (see Talk:India) and I for one don't have the stomach for a fight about images at this point. I agree with your point about scope creep, too; Highpeaks35 has also been responsible for copying over a lot of content from subsidiary articles. Given the already excessive length of this one, perhaps they would explain why they have done so. I will make some effort to trim some of this material soon. A little bit of the prose size issue could also be fixed by giving this a ruthless copy-edit; a lot of the bits that have been cobbled together from other articles have introduced redundancy and/or puffery that could be removed without affecting the actual content. Of course, some sections also need a rewrite, which is partly why I pinged F&F; it would be a much harder undertaking for someone not intimately acquainted with the source material. Vanamonde (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Yes, exactly, and it's a hard job. And I know F&F got really frustrated from what must seem like a never-ending stream of people coming in who, even with the best intentions, head straight for the lead in a FA and start mucking about without understanding the nature of a lead, or start expanding the body of the parent when all or almost all of it should really go into the child articles, to the point where they gave up and posted a retirement notice, and I just want to say how much I appreciate their efforts, and please don't go! I have a feeling they might be feeling a little lonely right now trying to stick their finger in the dike(s) all alone, and I just wanted to tell them you're not alone. Now clearly, I don't know as much about this article or its history to undertake a significant cutback, but I don't want them to feel like it's a one-person operation, either. So (and mabye this is straying enough from the section topic that it needs a new section, but...) if you would like, Fowler&fowler, to draw up a plan for cutbacks or content moves where you could perhaps manage a small team of volunteers that would more or less take instruction from a to-do list of tasks you draw up, perhaps on a subpage here, (or at WP:INDIA), I would be willing to help. (Btw, I guess that would make you the chief, and me the Indian .) You could use your knowledge of the article history, the SS relationships, and how it all fits together, draw up a plan and delegate the actual moves to whatever small team of volunteers we could round up, perhaps at WP:INB. I think that might better take advantage of your deep knowledge of the article, and multiply your efforts by N-fold. If this seems reasonable, we should probably open a new section about it. This article (and SS-children) could even be a test-bed for a general multiplier effect of this type, where we would enlist and profit from the different types of knowledge of different editors in order to share a large task in a more efficient way than everybody just coming in and hacking away at it without any kind of preorganization. I'll be "worker bee" number one for you, F&f, just tell me what you want me to do, or if you prefer, we can take it off to a conference room, and hash out together what needs doing. Or, of course, since this is all a volunteer gig, you can just ignore the whole thing, and go wind-surfing. Mathglot (talk) 23:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Xtools shows that the article has been stable till 2013, and has been steadily growing since then. It was 100K then. About 300–400K now. One possibility is to revert it to what it was at the end of 2013 (take a look) and let people negotiate about anything they want to add to it.

Splitting the article is not a good idea. But people can of course start new articles like "Classical Age in India" or "Medieval India" etc. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. "Splitting" an article doesn't imply dividing in two; it can mean, creating "Classical Age in India" and "Medieval India", moving detailed content from "History of India" into those two new articles, and leaving brief summary sections at the original article. The first and second sentences at WP:SPLIT make this clear. Mathglot (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I dind't understand you correctly. So, if we are leaning towards splitting, periods (e.g., the ACMM periodisation given in the article), would be the best candidates. Once that is done, we can reset this article back to something close to the 2013 state. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:, @Mathglot: Thanks for pinging me, and thanks also for the implicit confidence you place in me. I'm strapped for time, so I can't actively edit this article, but I can suggest how to go about making it more encyclopedic, and I'm happy to provide feedback. I think splitting the article at this stage is probably premature. Trimming it, as Vanamonde suggests, would be the first line of attack. This will take time. Several volunteers will be needed, preferably ones that have not hitherto significantly edited the article. They, by each picking one subsection, will need to comb through the section and check for the following:

• (a) the text is reliably sourced, that is:

• (i) the sources are themselves reliable, preferably published by academic publishers, and preferably no more than 40 years old, and
• (ii) they have been summarized accurately),
• Example 1 An example of inaccurate summarizing would be the statement in the lead, "Archaeological evidence of anatomically modern humans in the Indian subcontinent is estimated to be as old as 73,000–55,000 years,[7] with some evidence of early hominids dating back to about 500,000 years ago.[8][9]" This cited to a source, 7, and page number, 6, which actually states: "Genetic studies indicate the arrival of modern humans into the region by 75 to 55 KA (thousand years ago)." Furthermore, "hominids" are not anatomically modern humans, they are a different subspecies of Homo, this is not made clear.

• (b) there is due weight given to different topics in the section, that is:

• (i) this distribution of weight finds some resonance in the internationally used textbooks published by academic publishers, or
• (ii) in survey articles in academic journals.
• Note 1 Mere mention of a topic in a monograph or a journal article is not enough to determine due weight, as these forms of publishing are devoted to special sub-topics, and will necessarily give more weight to the details of that sub-topic. Consequently, relatively high level articles, such as History of India, will necessarily have to be somewhat conservative in their content. They have to avoid WP:RECENTISM
• Example 2: Citing a scholarly article claiming a 7500 BCE provenance for the Indian "neolithic" site of Bhirrana and published in the megajournal (one which publishes several hundred articles a month, with very brief turn around time between submission and acceptance) Scientific Reports. A mention of Bhirrana cannot be made in this Wikipedia article on the basis of that citation. If and when Bhirrana appears in internationally used academic textbooks on (early) Indian history, a mention can be made.
• Note 2 I emphasize internationally used. This is because in history topics books published and used only within a country can suffer from (i) nationalistic bias, (ii) other forms of bias, religious, ethnic, etc. Internationally used textbooks tend to suffer less from these forms of bias. "Internationally used" does not mean published outside India, or written by western authors.
• Example 3 An example of nationalistic (and also perhaps religious) bias in Indian history would be a statement such as: "Muslim conquest of India began in 1206, although parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan had been conquered earlier," or words to that effect found in the Delhi Sultanate section. In other words, when it suits this POV, only the "Indian subcontinent" is included in Indian history, and topics such as Mehrgarh, Indus Valley Civilization—indeed Vedic Hinduism, whose early development took place outside the boundaries of present-day India—are readily included; however, when it doesn't suit this POV, the Arab Muslim conquest of Sind in the eighth century, is considered to have taken place in a part of Pakistan, because that would make Islam have an older history in India.

For now, working on (a)(i) and (a)(ii), would be a good place to start. That itself will trim the article quite a bit. Only then, can (b)(i) and (ii) be considered. I will be happy to offer feedback, but cannot do the work itself. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary, Fowler&fowler. I'm happy to be one of the volunteers, though I too am fairly busy, and my work here will be intermittent. Also, Kautilya3, to answer one of your earlier concerns, the fact is much of the inflation here has occurred through content copied from subsidiary articles. So I think we can focus on trimming, and if absolutely necessary we can check through large diffs when we're done to see if there's anything we pruned that's not already covered in subsidiary articles. Best, Vanamonde (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35, your tendency to make significant changes without engaging at all on the talk page is getting bothersome. Why do you refuse to give any indications of your intentions here, despite multiple pings? You have, for instance, removed the entire historiography section, a removal which is likely contentious, without mentioning it here. Moreover, some discussion here has already touched on the need for such a section. Could you please engage here before making any more large-scale changes? Vanamonde (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35 Also, please make your edit summaries more transparent. "Trim," or "tweak" is not enough when you are making dozens of edits, some with significant deletions or additions. An editor looking to understand what has been deleted or added by you, should be able to determine so from your edit summaries alone, without having to examine each individual diff. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

IP Hopper 2405:204:2289:fe07:* , please stop your edit warring at History of India. You have made three reverts in ten minutes as 2405:204:2289:FE07:43F5:CC47:15E:6518 and at least another four in the same cidr block for a total of seven so far, and the twenty-four hours isn't even up yet.

In addition, as mentioned above by Vanamonde93, please stop using misleading edit summaries. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Somehow it's not correct the name a whole period after one specific culture, which did not dominate India then. Is there a better name? And, in this respect, Sanskritization should be mentioned; India was not Brahmanical and Sanskritized all at once. It still isn't it overall... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, we can put Sanskritization in the Iron Age section. However, having an entire section may not be a good idea. But a few sentence is fine with me. Thanks for being a team player Joshua Jonathan. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 08:05, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

the myth of aryan migration has nine maps/images alone in this article, so called vedic period but i noticed that none of the european articles themselves do this, i tried to add indo european migration maps in the history of greece and italy but it was immediately removed. might i ask why this myth is tolerated/forcefully enforced only specifically in the indian history articles and why this mythology is not tolerated in european articles even in iranian articles? i tried to remove autronesian origin of bengali people mythology from one west bengal history article which was also unsourced and this mythology too was enforced by reverting my edits which included more archaeological aspect rather than aryan mythology. i tried to remove dravidian origins mythology from this article which seems controversial and yet it was reverted and forcefully enforced by european users. 60.54.13.118 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, you should try better than this. Dropping a line and a map wiyhout any context is not really helpfull. And Iranian peoples, lead, first lines:

The Iranian peoples,[1] or the Iranic peoples,[2][3] are a diverse Indo-European ethno-linguistic group that comprise the speakers of the Iranian languages.[4][5]

The Proto-Iranians are believed to have emerged as a separate branch of the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia in the mid-2nd millennium BCE.[6][7]

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

aryan mythology should have no place in history of india articles or any history of india's region article, this crap is only enforced in indian articles by european users, even though they themselves stay clear from their own european history from these mythologies, these mythologies as i have already proposed should be restricted to aryan migration articles only and only those things which relate to archaeology and its study should be mentioned here, it pretty weird that europeans who impose all these mythologies stay clear from their own histories and only pollute their crap in indian history articles. its amusing how nine maps of aryan mythology and fantasy are posted in this article while tolerating abs zero in european ones. everybody knows that wikipedia doesnt tolerate any thing other than european agendas and their BS, but it should be so apparent, if you believe in aryan or indo european mythology, post this crap in your history articles as well and not just indian ones. There is only one aryan word which appears in iranian history, and yet thirty aryan words apear in this article alone. it seems like europeans want to impose their claim on indian history nothing else. 60.54.13.118 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Start your own blog, if you WP:DONTLIKEIT and prefer WP:CENSOR. Otherwise, see also WP:FORUM. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

See also Tony Joseph, "Examining the evidence for 'Aryan' migrations into India: The story of our ancestors and where we came from".. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:15, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, from the same author "How ancient DNA may rewrite prehistory in India, BBC News". पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Highpeaks35: you removed a subsection, calling it "speculative." I've restored part of it, but removed the (indeed) speculative and undue part of inscriptions on bones. But Parpola is a credible, and relevant, author. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 13 January 2019 (UTC) Ah, I see; F&f removed it too, calling it speculative:

copying indus civilization from lead of IVC; removing Dravidian Language speculation; does not belong to this page; it couldn't even get into the IVC page

Well, have a look at Indus Valley Civilisation#Language:

It has often been suggested that the bearers of the IVC corresponded to proto-Dravidians linguistically, the break-up of proto-Dravidian corresponding to the break-up of the Late Harappan culture.[144] Finnish Indologist Asko Parpola concludes that the uniformity of the Indus inscriptions precludes any possibility of widely different languages being used, and that an early form of Dravidian language must have been the language of the Indus people.[145] Today, the Dravidian language family is concentrated mostly in southern India and northern and eastern Sri Lanka, but pockets of it still remain throughout the rest of India and Pakistan (the Brahui language), which lends credence to the theory.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I did not discount it. That is why, I stated: "put it back if something ("someone" [spelling]) thinks otherwise." I took this part off since f&f was edit warring with me, and wanted to calm him down. He copied and pasted from old IVC lead and removed Dravidian origin. I was fine with most of this section. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC))

I think it is still WP:UNDUE. Following the agreement we reached with F&f's guidance, only such material as found in a standard "History of India" textbook belongs in this article. Perhaps a one-sentence mention would be acceptable, no more than that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it is also wrong to speak of the "Dravidians" as a people. Dravidian was a language. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello @Vanamonde93:: Please take a look at the revised lead of the IVC page here. This was more or less the consensus version of a year ago. Please note that words such as "cradle" are not used. You could start with that lead, and if needed whittle it down, or change the language, to arrive at the lead for this page's IVC section. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I'm not wedded to the "cradle of civilization" term; I was simply trying to reduce redundancy in the prose. I haven't actually worked through the sourcing of that section. I will take a look at that material soon. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

What we call today "Hinduism" emerged after 500 BCE. And Buddhism and Jainism responded to and interacted with the Vedic tradition(s), but were not reform movements of the Vedic tradition(s), let alone Hinduism. See Naomi Appleton, Shared Characters in Jain, Buddhist and Hindu Narrative: Gods, Kings and Other Heroes, as a starter. I'll have to check, but see also Geoffrey Samuel, The origins of Yoga and Tantra. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, Hinduism does not have a founder or any uniformed philosophy. Only thing that binds it is having some traditions from the Historical Vedic religions. Besides that, I don’t think there is a true date. Even current Hinduism is a Muslim and somewhat British innovation. I think it is better to keep its “origins” at the Vedic period. Anything else is purely speculative (i.e IVC to the British). (Highpeaks35 (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

I've discussed this topic through and through; you can find the relevant sources at Hinduism. The "anything else" is definitely not speculative, while putting it's "origin" at the Vedic period is too limited. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that was not very informative. The article and talk point to no agreement. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

Hinduism means what we recognize as Hinduism today: the worship of deities like Krishna, Rama, Shiva, and using Ramayana and Mahabharata as foundational texts. This religion very likely post-dates Buddhism. It is most probably an effort of Brahaminism reinventing itself in the face of the challenge posed by Buddhism. As JJ says, you need to read the Hinduism article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, that makes little sense to me. Honestly, by that notion, the late Bhakti movement in reaction to Islam much more impacts current Hinduism, no? I thought it was about origin, wouldn’t it still be associated to Vedic period? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

Unfortunately, you caught me there. It looks like the Hinduism article is all wrong about the so-called "Bhakti movement". I will flag it up to Ms Sarah Welch to fix.

In my view, there was no such thing called "Bhakti movement". It is just a made-up theory of some Leftist scholars who wanted to argue that Islam influenced Hinduism. It is all hocus-pocus. Hinduism always had Bhakti. Hanuman was the greatest Bhakta right there in the Ramayana. The reality is that around 800 AD, according to the Bhakti movement page, Bhakti saints began to revered, in addition to Gurus and ascetics. It is more a social movement than a religious one. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Here's my take on this. This is a history page. It's POV is that of historians, not of scholars of religion or Sanskritists. This means that we pay more attention to how historians have summarized the available records; otherwise, we risk swimming into waters deeper than our shallow water mandate allows for. In other words, we are writing the long view of Indian history. The Vedic Period section (in this page) is a case in point. It has paragraphs summarized from Michael Witzel's in-house journal (Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies (or title thereabouts)). It is difficult to understand. It consists mainly of the naming of names. There is no historical argument. Contrast what's in there with Burton Stein's History of India, section "Clearing the forests,"which is the introduction to his Vedic Period:

Between 1000 and 500 BCE iron tools and weapons provided the technological foundations for the expansion of agricultural communities over the entire basin of the Ganges. One important consequence of the replacement of copper and bronze implements by stronger iron weapons and tools was the greater ease in removing the forest cover from the banks of the Ganges, so these fertile lands could be planted."

and slightly later:

"The supersession of bronze by iron and pastoralism by sedentary agriculture laid the foundation for a new period of political consolidation beginning around 1000 BCE. Numerous small cities in the Gangetic valley reflect the twin processes of agricultural development and state formation. Out of these processes came a set of monarchies around the eighth to sixth centuries BCE, and the first imperial regime, the Mauryans, around 320 BCE. The opening of the vast, fertile Gangetic plain to agrarian exploitation can be glimpsed in the post-Harappan archaeological record, to which has been added the rich docu mentation of the Sanskrit Vedic corpus. ... Archaeology and the Vedic documents permit two simultaneous changes to be traced, one to a fully settled agrarian economy and the other from clans with a lineage-based society to the more complex social and political forms that have marked all subsequent developments in India and made it distinctive."

The historian's perspective is that as the Aryans moved from the Punjab and down the Gangetic Plain, their technology allowed for large-scale deforestation along the Ganges, in turn changing their dominant modes of production from pastoralism to agriculture and their dominant organization from lineage-based clans to the complex social differentiation that is unique to India. If you are not getting that message across, you are not writing history, only naming names. My earnest request is to stop trying to squeeze in your specialist perspective into the article; instead, pick up only history books, i.e. ones that cover the entire history of India, and summarize them at the scale of this article. You don't really need anything more than Stein's History of India and Kulke's and Rothermund's History of India for the first cut. You don't need Romila Thapar (ancient), you don't need Asher and Talbot (medieval), you don't Metcalf and Metcalf (modern) at this stage. Otherwise, I fear this page will remain the sorry apology for history that it already has been for so long. Here is the pdf of Stein's book. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Ehm.... who's the you in "your specialist perspective"? My point was this:

the established orthodoxies of Hinduism had given impulse to the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism and to the lives of their exemplars, Gautama Buddha and Mahavira.

There was no Hinduism at that time, let alone "established orthodoxies of Hinduism." That's at least a 1000 years later. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

We all are. This is the most low-res history of India on Wikipedia. We can only summarize other low-res (and consequently high-level) histories of India. We can't create our own low-res from the high-res works of others. PS I had written that in a hurry, from memory, and couldn't review it as Highpeaks35 reverted it. What I had written in the India page originally was a little different: "The emerging urbanisation as well as the orthodoxies of the late Vedic age created the religious reform movements of Buddhism and Jainism.[25] " It was cited to Kulke and Rothermund's History of India (pages 54–55) which state, "This new Gangetic civilisation found its spiritual expression in a reform movement which was a reaction to the Brahmin—Kshatriya alliance of the Late Vedic age. This reform movement is mainly identified with the teaching of Gautama Buddha who is regarded as the first historic figure of Indian history." and "The Buddha, however, was not the only great reformer of that age. There was also Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, who is supposed to have been a younger contemporary of the Buddha. Jainism, this other great ascetic religion, was destined to have an unbroken tradition in India, especially in the rich merchant communities of western India." Later on someone added "both of which became independent religions" to my sentence (such is the danger of India's overarching popular Hindu POV, that this qualification needs to be made, i.e. that people fear that the assertion implies that Buddhism and Jainism were movements within Hinduism, and they can still be dismissed in such manner.) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I see, clear; thanks. The term "reform movement" is controversial, but what you wrote makes perfect sense. As far as I know, the Buddha did indeed react against Brahmanism, but not with the aim to "reform" it, but as an alternate 'dharma'. But maybe it also depends on what we mean with, or how we read, "reform." But those are the details, indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Stein has a more sophisticated introduction to his sections on Buddhism and Jainism: "Buddhism and Jainism were atheistic, ascetic and ethical systems that came into existence and were structured in opposition to the practices and beliefs of the ‘later vedic’ period (between about 900 and 500 BCE), when a religion based upon sacrificial ritual was carried out by specialists called ‘brahmans’, financed by wealthy and pious donors, and set out in manuals appropriately called ‘brahmanas’. It was against this sacrificial cult and its practices that the Buddha and Mahavira defined their ethical teachings; these were then preserved and transmitted through orders of monks who were recruited from many social groups, including brahmans. Yet in all of this the religious activities of ordinary people were probably not much altered. Then and later they centred on the propitiation of local tutelary deities whose protection was supplicated or whose wilful destructiveness (usually in the form of disease) was averted through humble offerings." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

PS I have to go now, but I believe Stein was a genius of the long view. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Perfect in line with the colonisation of the Ganges plain, and the movement of Veic towards the east. Magadha was, of course, at the perifery of the Vedic culture for a long(er) time, and Buddhism and Jainism have, at least partly, different roots. It's interesting that the Sramana movement also gave rise to 'orthodox' renouncers, who acknowledged the Vedas, but rejected ritual. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:28, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Highpeaks35 has undone my careful, scrupulous, reliable (cited to Rita P. Wright's, Ancient Indus CUP, 2009), and balanced rewrite of the first two paragraphs of the lead, by restoring the partisan version (which uses the word "advancement" for the transition in South Asia from the urban Indus Valley Civilization to the pastoral Vedic Period, which in his restored version has been Wikilinked to "Vedic Civilization,"), unreliable (which cited to Puffins History of India and such books for children) and rendered in English that is chock full of lexical and syntactical howlers such as, "The era saw the composition of the Vedas, the seminal texts of Hinduism, coalesce into Janapadas (monarchical, state-level polities), and social stratification based on caste." Highpeaks35 has moreover roped in others such as Joshua Jonathan in absentia, in his edit summary, by proclaiming, "You can’t change the lead that was through (sic) WP:CONCENSUS (sic) for years without proper agreement. Look at the history, JJ and many others discussed for hours before making (sic) establishing this lead)." Since I don't feel Highpeaks35 likes to discuss his edits at any level of constructive engagement on the talk page, I will be adding, neutrality- and language improvement tags for the article's lead. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Weighing in: I fully agree with Fowler&fowler's concerns and well-considered edits. I also agree that the lead should be trimmed - it's currently much, much longer than History of Iran, History of Greece, History of China, History of Egypt, and so on. The body also feels too long, with many sections extensively duplicating details that are already in the respective main articles. I would readily assist other editors in discussing and making the necessary edits. (At the same time, I see a potential addition to the body, if it can be done concisely. In particular, the Vedic culture was not the only culture in India during its time: for instance, the Iron Age Megalithic culture is important to the early history of South India, but is currently not mentioned here at all. Also, the "ceramic goblet from Navdatoli" depicted in the "Iron Age - Vedic Period" section actually comes from the Malwa culture, which is neither Iron Age nor typically considered to be part of the Vedic material culture.) -Avantiputra7 (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagreeing with F&F's changes is fine, restoring the entirety of the previous version was not, in this case, correct, because the previous version included flagrant NPOV violations and grammatical errors, as described above. Highpeaks, please note that when you revert competent editors, you are by and large taking responsibility for the version you are reverting to. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Present lead is better since it gives a neutral summary about all of the events without mentioning a particular example to be more important than other one. This cannot be seen in Fowler's version. Lead appears to be creation of years of consensus which should not be reverted in a single day. Highpeaks35 was justified with his revert, and you may want to write your own lead in your sandbox before proposing the changes. Shashank5988 (talk) 18:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Shashank5988: Could you please find citations to the statements in the current lead in internationally adopted textbooks published by academic publishers? What about the syntactical, lexical, and stylistic errors in the lead? Are those too the creation of years of consensus? Either way, please first correct them in a sandbox and present them for evaluation here, instead of directly correcting the page. As it stands, I can spot an error in pretty much every sentence of the lead. If I will be soon, by February 3, running my red pen through the lead and adding inline templates as well. Do not assert later that you were not warned. Very best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Highpeaks35 Let me politely, but firmly, remind you to not make accusations of Eurocentrism, especially when you have no clue that the page Indo-Aryan peoples that you replaced Indo-European languages with was carefully edited by me in this edit of more than a year ago. Also, why did you remove the bit about "excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure?" It is sourced. Please replace it. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Fowler&fowler, they were Indo-Aryan, they called themselves Aryan, not Indo-European. And the part about removing jobs by caste is already mentioned in the article. It is repetitive. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
• Highpeaks35 They might have called themselves Aryan, but what is Indo? They certainly had no clue about a Latin prefix. What is a new comer to the article to make of it? The article is written for an English language readership. "Removing jobs by caste?" This is the lead we are taking about. It summarizes what is in the article. Please tell me what is written in the article that is a replication of "excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure?" The same sentence is in the India article. It is sourced. It is crucial, as it addresses untouchability, the defining inequality of Vedic culture. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Highpeaks35 Please see the OED: "Indo- : combining form of Greek Ἰνδός, Latin Indus (cf. Greek Ἰνδο-σκυθία Scythia of the Indies, Indian Scythia), employed in modern compounds, in which it qualifies another word, substantive or adjective, or denotes the combination of Indian with some other characteristic (chiefly ethnological)." It is employed in modern compounds and was unavailable to the emigrating Aryans. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
• Fowler&fowler,
  • 1. It is still the closest to what they called themselves. If it makes you happy, take "Indo-" away. They were clearly Indo-Aryan speakers, more so than their distant parent Indo-European language.
    2. The article clearly had "but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure" in the History of India#Vedic society. Mentioning it twice, of a very sensitive and controversial topic, and putting it in the lead for new readers who may not understand, when it is already mentioned is clearly POV pushing. Your statement: "as it addresses untouchability, the defining inequality of Vedic culture" is moot, every civilization had massive inequality. Again, these are the reason why I find you work to be Eurocentric. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC))
    • Highpeaks, your arguments are straying from policy. What ancient peoples called themselves matters not the in the least; we need to use the descriptions used by reliable sources. Furthermore, the idea that we shouldn't mention social inequality because it was present is every society is also nonsense. Reliable sources give great weight to the social inequities of the caste system, and so we must, too. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• • (ec) Highpeaks, the point is not whether inequality was present everywhere. Academic scholars point to the caste system as a peculiarly Indian form of discrimination that arose during the Vedic period. Whether that is Eurocentric is not for Wikipedia editors to decide. It is against our policies, and does a disservice to our readers, when individual editors trust their own opinions over those of scholars. --regentspark (comment) 02:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the exact line was already mentioned in the article, why mention it twice? Look at Vedic society: "but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure". Almost all reliable sources use Indo-Aryan to describe the Vedic period, rarely Indo-European, even for the early waves. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

RegentsPark, the exact word for word line is already in the body of the article ("but also eventually by the excluding of some indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure"). Why mention it twice? Also, all reliable souces mention the Vedic period as an Indo-Aryan culture, when did it become the culture of the parent Indo-European? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

The lead is a summary of the body: mentioning something in the body is not a reason to exclude it from the lead. You can hash out your disagreement with "Indo-European" with F&F; just keep your arguments based in policy, please. What evidence do you have that most reliable sources use "Indo-Aryan" to describe the vedic cultures? Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, caste is already mentioned, the 4 division is already mentioned. Untouchability is very tricky subject, as we can't even be certain as even the word "Dasa" is highly controversial word. Just go to the Slavery in India talk page. It was discussed many times. Also, our own article Vedic period has all the references in the world which points to Indo-Aryan, rather than Indo-European. RegentsPark, can you give your take on it? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

The absence of indigenous peoples, who constitute the oldest group on the subcontinent and who are a numerically significant grouping, is described quite substantially in connection with the caste system; a description of the caste system is incomplete without it. Fowler, I do think the additional qualifier about their occupation is too much detail for an already overlong lead: it's sufficient to mention their exclusion. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:45, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• I'm a little confused why you find Indo-European languages to be eurocentric since it includes Indo as well as European. Regardless, it is a very well accepted term and is generally preferable over Indo-Aryan because it is tied to languages rather than ethnicity and language dispersion is better understood. --regentspark (comment) 03:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RegentsPark, so, is the Vedic period Indo-Aryan or Indo-European culture? What do most literature state? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC))

Some more comments:

• I fully agree with Avantiputra7 that the Vedic culture was not the only culture in India during its time; talking about ethnic bias, the emphasis on the Vedic culture certainly is a bias;
• I also don't understand why the sentence but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure, arose later during this period was removed. The fact that it's also mentioned in the article is a reason to include it in the lead, not to exclude: lead summarises the article. And, it's highly relevant.
• RegentsPark is right that "Indo-European" refers to speakers of Indo-European languages. It includes an implicit reference to the origins of those languages, far away at the Ukrainian-Russian steppes, and the roots that Indian languages share with European languages. The only "Euro-centric" aspect about that is the (unfortunate) fact that those shared roots are deemed problematic by some of the inheritors of this shared past, up to the point of complete denial, and embracing fringe "scholarship," c.q. fantasies.
• The change of "Indo-Aryan people" into "Vedic Aryans" is unacceptable; those Vedic Aryans were not the only tribes who entered India.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Phew! Not sure where to begin. First of all, thanks @Joshua Jonathan: for a carefully written comment. Thanks also to @RegentsPark:, @Vanamonde93:, and @Avantiputra7: for your own incisive comments. Thanks also to @Highpeaks35: for bringing this topic up for renewed discussion. Here is a little history. Before this current focus on this page, I last edited it in July 2007, reverting a suspected sockpuppet and displaying workaday familiarity with "Indo-Aryan," for I reinstated it (but not in the lead). And for good reason: the linguist Colin Masica had given me a copy of his magnum opus The Indo-Aryan Languages some years earlier. Recently I wrote what I did in the lead because I wanted it to be accessible to a newcomer. "Indo-European" is a term more widely understood than "Indo-Aryan," though neither term has wild currency. More crucially for a lead, "Indo-European" doesn't carry the controversy that plagues the word "Aryan" in popular parlance. Also as Joshua observes, it is a nod to the larger group of languages, originating in Southeastern Ukraine, or thereabouts, that created a linguistic revolution in the world. Besides, Indo Aryan is a priori also Indo European, as the latter is the larger umbrella term. Please also note how manageable the size of the article was in those days. As for the text, "but which excluded indigenous peoples by labeling their occupations impure," I should know where it came from for I wrote it. It was my paraphrase of the sources in the ancient history section of India. I added it to the lead based on a general principal first voiced by User:Nichalp, the patron saint of India-related pages, which states that, "The India-related pages are in such disarray that we improve them by first securing the flagship articles, such as India, making them FAs, and hence stable, and then using their content to write the leads of the daughter articles, and to finally expanding the leads into the article body. It was the reverse of the usual process and in 2007 already many India pages had become chock full of less than reliable information. The two paragraphs I wrote are already overlong for the lead. They will need to be reduced. The point of their writing was more to offer guidelines on how to rewrite the article. Finally I cringe at Highpeak35's jargon-ridden parenthetical additions, "(monarchical, state-level polities)." In the lead, such jargon is as much double Dutch (sorry Joshua) to most people as is what it is attempting to explain. It needs to be avoided. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• "with some evidence of early hominids dating back to about 500,000 years ago," was removed without explanation, I restored it because it is important.

"At the site of Mehrgarh, Balochistan, presence can be documented of the domestication of wheat and barley, rapidly followed by that of goats, sheep, and cattle" is undue. This is article is about history of India not Balochistan.

The caste system and Janapadas should get no extra description, and especially not the disputed one on lead. I removed a sentence dedicated to caste system. It is furthermore assumed that Caste system probably arose millennium later. These details are heavily disputed and should not belong to lead, though I have still retained "The caste system" in the lead.

Multiple mentions of Buddha appeared undue. One mention is enough. 112.134.66.239 (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• 4th concern has been resolved so I struck it, but rest are yet to be checked. 112.134.66.170 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

112.134.66.239, IP, I agree with your edits here. And your explanation. Please proceed. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC))

112.134.66.239, Highpeaks35 I'm sorry one persons perfunctory agreement (offered without explanation) doesn't a consensus make. This the history of India, in the main its human history, which includes the pre-literate history (as it includes the Vedic age and mentions the early hunter gatherers) but it does not substantially cover the pre-verbal history, especially of hominid species that became extinct, that were a different species from Homo sapiens sapiens. Anatomically modern humans came out of Africa; they did not evolve on the Indian subcontinent. The early history of India is the history of South Asia. It includes a mention of the transition of dominant mode of production from hunting and gathering to farming and pastoralism; that happened first undisputedly in Balochistan. The caste system is the defining form of social organization of the later Vedic Age after the Aryans had moved down the Ganges valley, deforested swaths along it, began to till the land (agricultue) and abandoned their lineage-based clan sysems for 'this uniquely Indian forms of social differentiation that is called the caste system. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Going by your method, I would now ask that where is the consensus to change the longstanding lead? Source makes no mention of "Africa" and just because two things are different it doesn't means that sourced content needs to be removed. Rest of your message is not addressing the concerns raised with your lead. 112.134.66.170 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Made some small edits for now to make the intro less verbose and repetitive. I also have a few additional thoughts/questions about the 3rd-5th paragraphs (among the many other issues with them):

• For the medieval and early modern period, there is a tendency here to list as many notable dynasties as possible, which results in long lists of names with barely any context. A place to make cuts? Based on which ones tend to get their own chapter in textbooks, after the Guptas, are there any aside from the Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals, Vijayanagara, and the Marathas (and maybe the Cholas?) that specifically need to be named here?
• There can be more information about trends: for instance, place the Delhi Sultanate and Mughal Empire in context with the taking shape of Indo-Islamic culture, the economic changes, and the increased integration with the wider world, and so forth.
• Is the specific mention of Wootz steel an excessive level of detail for the intro? Would a more general observation about innovations be appropriate?
• Should the intro broadly mention that the centuries following the Maurya Empire saw new waves of invasions from the northwest? (i.e., Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Kushans - but maybe no need to list them out.) The textbooks usually do mention that there were significant impacts (on art, astronomy, connections with the wider world, religious reactions). -Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
• Pertaining to the first point above, instead of a line like this:

  The most significant event between the 7th and 11th century was the Tripartite struggle centred on Kannauj that lasted for more than two centuries between the Pala Empire, Rashtrakuta Empire, and Gurjara-Pratihara Empire. Southern India saw the rise of multiple imperial powers from the middle of the fifth century, most notably the Chalukya, Chola, Pallava, Chera, Pandyan, and Western Chalukya Empires.

  one could say simply that "During the 7th to 11th century control of northern India was contested between different regional dynasties..." and mention general trends, like how the dynasties of this period patronized elaborate temple developments. Also, shouldn't the growth of tantra and bhakti be mentioned in the intro? -Avantiputra7 (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Only one hypothesis is being presented about Caste system on lead. Mainstream scholars are of a view there are numerous hypothesis about it.

• Martin Fárek, Dunkin Jalki, Sufiya Pathan, Prakash Shah. Western Foundations of the Caste System. Springer.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• KN Dash. Invitation to Social and Cultural Anthropology. Atlantic Publishers.

There are many scholars are of the view that Caste system developed in the classical period or later. See this page which cites multiple scholars. Lockard gives a detailed view about it that you should read. It is agreeable that the concerns of Highpeaks35 are sensible and this can be reduced by simply cutting any details about caste system on lead other than a mere mention, but then again, why we should be giving weight to only a heavily disputed hypothesis? 112.134.66.170 (talk) 14:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

That was exactly my point. As such, my concerns about Eurocentrism. Again, in their (Western World, esp. American scholarship) defense, Indians themselves gave esp. American scholars precedence in writing Indian history and society (esp. caste) as they saw fit. As seen in the Murthy foundation giving Sheldon Pollock the right of founding editor, instead of an equivalent Indian-origin Sanskrit scholar (even though Sheldon interprets Indian history in leftist American political stance, leading to the massive petition). However, I am not blaming anyone, as Indians writing Greco-Roman/European history would have been done in a bias way as well, I am sure, my clear POV here. As the old Indian saying goes: "whoever has the power, they can claim anything whether that is true or false." (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2019 (UTC))

This is a history of India, a low-res, long-view, history of India, a history as written by historians, not our summary of different high-res views of the different topics. What is UNDUE or DUE weight is the domain of the historians of the long view who have written such histories, ones that cover the same span of time as does this article, that are reliable, have been adopted by universities world wide, and are published by scholarly publishers. Shelly Pollock is not a historian, not to mention that this is not the place for general ideological discussions. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Focus on the concern. Why you are presenting only one disputed hypothesis about caste system? 112.134.66.170 (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, Pollock is not a historian, but his commentary on Indian history and caste (which we are discussing here) is profound. Universities are heavily influenced by their donors and governments they receive support. The popularity of changing "Indian studies" to "South Asian studies" in the USA, was hugely a Cold War narrative, since American government allegiance was with Pakistan's academic opinion, among others, being Indian government is not receptive to American digs and scholarship in comparison to the Pakistani government. In many, to most, European, African and Asian universities, they usually state "India and South Asia Studies" (mainly Britain/France), or Indology (Asian universities; Thailand, Japan, etc.), as such, it is not universal. However, in American Universities is universally "South Asian studies". As such, the sources provided in Wiki needs to have a global perspective, esp. when it comes to something like caste, not just American based sources. I am just asking for caution, esp. on Indian pre-history and caste. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC))

Thanks IP, you made another valid point Fowler&fowler has not answered. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 You are regurgitating undigested information. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that you haven't processed the basic texts on Indian history. People have told you to take time aside and learn and process. I can see that you are not able to write narrative prose, making only lists and more lists. Please stay away from ideological arguments. The first issue on this page is to produce a historical narrative. Learn the basics first. It takes time. You are not there. This has nothing to do with Eurocentrism or systemic bias. As it is, you have set back progress on this article by willy-nilly adding tidbits of information in a manner that inhibits the development of narrative. You are missing the forest for the trees. You have all this energy, which is creditable. Spend it on developing historical narrative based in the long views of history. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, you did not answer the IP’s inquiry above. Please advise. (Highpeaks35 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 Tell the IP to read: Wikipedia:IP_addresses_are_not_people#Conclusion. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:27, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, ok, I don’t agree with it. But policy is policy. As such, I will ask the question: Why you are presenting only one disputed hypothesis about caste system? (Highpeaks35 (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC))

Highpeaks35 You can't ask those questions. You haven't read those books. You can't dump them at my doorstep on the word of an IP. That is the IP all over again. Please read some history. It takes time. You are not there yet. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Fowler, but that unpopular essay is not the answer. Not to mention that you are you are similarly evading the questions asked by the registered users. Now read WP:STONEWALL and answer the question. 43.250.240.157 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

I made this subsection in the morning and didn't do anything else, because I couldn't understand what the IP was talking about. Now I see that the section has gone all over place, and I feel like collapsing it. But before I do so, let me just say that there is one sentence on the caste system in the lead. It is broken, but it seems to have been there for ages, and it will get fixed eventually after the body is cleaned up. As for 'Eurocentricism', it is all bollocks. Most of the scholars we use are devoted students of Indian studies and they don't say anything lightly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes 'Eurocentricism' has become the standard "I don't ♥ that" objection on these pages. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

In just one image set I found major errors, and have corrected them. I'm astounded at the scale of the distortion in these captions. I'm assuming that similar examples are to be found throughout this article. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi. The latest change is fine by me. "Destructive" was the word used in the Davis text that you use for the el nino, but it is a harsh word. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: @Vanamonde93: Sorry, I didn't mean to stifle discussion so definitively, so I'm reopening it, but not the move. I just wanted to say that this page has a much bigger problem. We have talked about improving it, pruning it, but nothing has happened. It remains a lop-sided Hindu view of India. The reams of cumbrous prose and ungainly pictures each vying with the other to glaze the earnest reader's eye, speak to that. How will a meta discussion on the title fix the basic problem? So, we'll have a Hindu view of South Asia.

We have very limited manpower. The people who have time should be improving the article. (I don't have anything against you Mstrojny :) Its just that I've seen very little change on this page in 12 years.) As for nested intervals, I tried that:

In other words, we have another discussion on form, but the content no one wants to touch, except of course the POV promoters. Sorry but I sincerely believe that well-meaning though this may be, it won't change a thing. People, i.e. the upholders of the shining India get the hiccups when "Indian subcontinent" is changed to "South Asia." What are the chances that they will allow their beloved "India" itself to be changed to South Asia? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:42, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and Fowler&fowler: Should I list this discussion in the requests for comment to get more people to comment on this? Mstrojny (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

An RfC would be a good idea. I don't mean though that my rumination itself be the topic of the RfC. In the discussion in 2007, an editor @John K:, who I believe is a historian, took active part. Perhaps, if he is still interested, he might want to comment, maybe even suggest what the topic of discussion should be for an article such as this, in its current state. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:56, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Redrose64 reverted the requests for comment. See here. Can you please fix your statement according to the guidelines so it can be listed for requests for comment please? Mstrojny (talk) 23:54, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @F&F: Fundamentally we're in agreement, I think; you're collapsed schema above is virtually identical to what I had in mind when I commented on the now-removed move request. My difficulties are two-fold; first, I have limited time; second, the only topics on which I can claim above-average knowledge of the source material is pre-history and contemporary history. In these areas I'm confident I can write material without first having to spend weeks reading the background. That isn't true for the rest of the article, which is why I have restricted my efforts to copy-editing. As such, I'm afraid I can only play a supporting role in any proposed rewrite. For similar reasons, I don't think an RfC is going to be helpful. An RfC is useful in solving specific disagreement; what we need is a major investment of time. Mstrojny, my recommendation would be to personally recruit editors who have the ability to write Indian history. Also pinging @Sitush and Doug Weller:. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I don't know any editors who can write Indian history. Can you find editors that can write Indian history? Or you can tell me where I can find editors that can comment on this discussion. Mstrojny (talk) 10:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde93 Well, contemporary history is only a stone's throw away from Modern History, and that in India began in 1858 after the Great Rebellion. It just happens that I had written something in 2007, initially a history of India's independence movement, which in effect became a history of the years 1858–1947, and of South Asia. That page, User:Fowler&fowler/Short_History_Indian_Independence_Movement, was used for the history section of the British Raj. However, the Raj history page has now snowballed into everyone and their brother's history of grudges, both colonial and colonized. My history is at least mostly neutral, mostly sourced, and mostly readable. All you will need to do is to summarize it somewhat in keeping with the scale of this page, and to paraphrase it somewhat so that it does not appear we are copying and pasting from the published authors who have lifted prose from that page in their published books. For modern History it is probably the quickest fix. Modern history should occupy a quarter of this page's bytes (i.e. in the division: early, medieval, early modern, and modern). The rewriting would proceed in three steps: a) replace, b) reduce, especially sections 9 and 10 which are overlong and c) reword. I think even the barest of progress would be an improvement. Would you like to take a stab at it? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: Vanamonde93 suggested nominating Outline of South Asian history for deletion. See here. I understand there was a discussion here and it was re titled to Outline of South Asian history. Should I nominate that article again for deletion? Consensus can change. Mstrojny (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: I do think it should be deleted, but a nomination is likely a waste of time, because it would get caught up in the horrible mess surrounding portals/outlines/other navigation tools/anything The Transhumanist has worked on that is ongoing. I suspect someone will attempt a mass deletion of outlines at some point; consensus for this page can be determined then. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: How should we proceed at this point? Mstrojny (talk) 15:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Mstrojny: Ultimately the most effective way to proceed would be to spend some time getting acquainted with the source material, and then actually rewriting the troublesome parts of this article, and/or writing a larger regional overview. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:15, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I would like to request more input on this discussion. Interstellarity (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I notice the word 'civilisation' and 'civilization', which are both equally valid. However, it looks rather sloppy to have both spellings in a single article, particularly (as in the opening paragraph) in close conjunction. I would fix them, but to what spelling? Mulstev (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)